Checks are negotiable instruments regulated in the United States under Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.) Articles 3 and 4. Traditionally, checks are paper instruments created by a payor filling in a pre-printed form on check stock paper where the payor inputs by handwriting, typing, or printing the required payment information. This paper check is then sent out using the mail, overnight delivery, hand delivery, or the like, but, in the end, the paper check is physically delivered directly to a payee to satisfy a debt. Upon receipt, the payee deposits the paper check into their bank for credit to their own account. The depositing bank bundles all of the paper checks together and sends them to the bank's “Item Processing” department for processing (i.e., sorting, grouping and totaling) by high speed machinery. The purpose of this processing was to generate the necessary accounting entries needed to debit and credit the appropriate checking accounts and clear the payment. If the deposited check originated outside of the bank, the paper check must be forwarded for presentment to the originating (or paying) bank for payment. An alternative forwarded presentment model includes a remotely created check (i.e. paper check) by the payee. Note, the return process, such as for non-sufficient funds (NSF), works in a similar manner as the forward presentment model in reverse.
Traditionally, paper checks moved from the Bank of First Deposit (BOFD) to a clearinghouse, and then moved again from a clearinghouse to either another regional clearinghouse which was closer to the clearing bank (often times a Federal Reserve Bank in the issuing banks geographic area) or directly to the clearing bank. It is the clearing banks responsibility to validate the check, verify that the account exists and has sufficient funds and then pay the BOFD so it may credit the account of the depositing payee.
This dependence on the movement of paper (for security, authenticity, and processing/payment) created a multi-day processing period between the date of deposit and the date of payment and finally the date of credit to the payee's account. This movement of paper checks was a weakness in the United States financial system as checks have been the preferred method for making payments between individuals, businesses, and the government. Further, the movement of these paper checks frequently utilized the airline network to quickly move paper from one part of the country to another. Thus, when 9/11 struck and the airline fleets were grounded, the entire check clearing and payment system was severely impacted. This caused some checks to not be delivered and people were left without funds to pay for necessities. The aftermath of this transportation delay created huge political pressure on the government to eliminate the dependency on paper check clearing.
Prior to the Check 21 Act, a bank that presented a check for payment was required to present the original paper check unless the clearing bank had agreed to accept alternative presentment from the depositing bank in some other form such as electronic image exchange. §3-501(b)(2) and §4-110 of the Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.) specifically authorizes banks and other persons to agree to alternative means of presentment, such as electronic image presentment. However, in order to truncate checks early in the collection process and engage in broad-based electronic presentment, a collecting bank would need electronic presentment agreements with each bank to which it presents checks for collection. This limitation proved impracticable because of both the large number of banks and the unwillingness of some paying banks to receive electronic presentment. As a result of the difficulty in obtaining the agreements necessary to present checks electronically in all cases, prior to the Check 21 Act, banks had not been able to take full advantage of the efficiencies and potential cost savings of handling checks electronically.
The Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act (Check 21) became effective on Oct. 28, 2004. Check 21 was designed to foster innovation in the payments system and to enhance efficiency by reducing some of the legal impediments to check truncation (eliminating a paper check by converting it into a digital image and destroying the original paper item). The law facilitates check truncation by creating a new negotiable instrument called a substitute check, which permits banks to truncate original paper checks, to process check information electronically via exchange of check image files, and to deliver substitute checks to banks that want to continue receiving paper checks. A substitute check is created from a check image described by the X9.37 ‘ANSI’ draft standard or the X9.140 and the X9.180 final standards, all of which are incorporated in-full by reference herein. This image file is a digital bitmap in Tagged Image File Format (TIFF) created by electronically scanning and imaging the front and back of the original paper check. The substitute check (also known as an Image Replacement Document (IRD)), is created by printing the front and back images along with some additional information on an 8.5×11 inch sheet of paper. Under the Check 21 law, this IRD is treated as the legal equivalent of the original check and includes all of the information contained on the original check. When printed, the images and data must conform to the X9.140 standard which is incorporated in-full by reference herein. The law does not require banks to accept checks in electronic form, nor does it require banks to use the new authority granted by the Act to create substitute checks. The law also does not authorize the payor to generate their own truncated item which satisfies all of the warranties and indemnities required to be acceptable substitute checks. Thus, while the law allowed banks to truncate checks by generating electronic items, end users, such as payors or payees, were not included in the original intent of the law nor were they conceived of as being part of the truncation concept.
Referring to FIG. 1, a substitute check (or IRD) 10 is a paper reproduction of an original check that contains an image of the front and back of the original check and is suitable for automated processing in the same manner as the original check. To clear a check for consideration for payment, the depositing bank transfers, presents, or returns the substitute check 10 (or another paper or electronic representation of a substitute check) and warrants that (1) the substitute check 10 contains an accurate image of the front and back of the original check and a legend stating that it is the legal equivalent of the original check, and (2) no depositary bank, drawee, drawer, or endorser will be asked to pay a check that it already has paid. The substitute check 10 for which a bank has made these warranties is the legal equivalent of the original check for all purposes and all persons.
Although Check 21 has facilitated the inter-bank exchange of electronic check images, it has not been fully utilized or enabled throughout the payment system by payors and payees due to a variety of issues surrounding either security weaknesses or legal gaps. These issues are currently viewed to be either unsolvable or to involve extreme changes to existing business methods which would need to be overcome before a wider adoption of Check 21 imaging concepts can be implemented across the payments industry to everyone. The first issue, in terms of general Check 21 industry implementation challenges, is the fact that frequently both the actual paper check and the Check 21 image may be cleared by the bank creating a double debit situation. Note that while the actual number of occurrences of these double debits has tended to be reduced as banks improve their internal Check 21 business methods and systems, these same well known debit issues are generally unavoidable for any bank first implementing a Check 21 style image clearing process for either the forward or return clearing cycles. Second, a variety of security issues are of grave concern to banks given the entire loss of the existing paper check security features which have been developed over the last 30 to 40 years as defined by the older X9 standards which are herein incorporated by reference in-full. These image security holes show up primarily in the payments industry when they contemplate the concept of having a customer present an image to a bank to be settled as a UCC check payment. Consider, for example, the case where a customer shows up with what looks like a Check 21 image in IRD form. As currently viewed by the industry, anyone with a modest degree of skill in digital graphics editing can create a valid, Check 21 like image using PhotoShop or other graphics software programs using stolen customer checking account or Demand Deposit Account (DDA) data to create a fraudulent check. Also, given the lack of security in paper IRDs, banks are reluctant to accept random IRDs for deposit, slowing down their acceptance as returned items. Finally, banks do not believe that end users or customers are permitted under the existing Check 21 act to create check images or substitute checks. So from the industry viewpoint, there are legal and regulatory barriers that must be overcome before Check 21 items could be viable consumer payment mechanisms. These problems must be overcome before the concepts of Check 21 can be applied to everyone—allowing users to receive the benefits of Check 21 that are already being received by the banks. The benefits of paperless Check 21 item origination and processing include faster delivery, as well as the lower costs from securely and efficiently processing payments and the reduced clearing time and reduced risk exposure from unknown payor items drawn on out of town banks. Finally, if properly implemented, the concepts provided by the Check 21 act would enable everyone from consumers to businesses to governments to charities to create and effectively process secure electronic payments in a manner similar to existing low cost electronic payment methods such as Electronic Check Automated Clearing House (ACH) items covered under the National Clearinghouse Association (NACHA) rules.
Referring to FIG. 2, conventionally under Check 21, substitute checks or IRDs are only utilized between banks, such as clearing banks, banks of first deposit (BOFD), and the like. A flowchart 20 illustrates an exemplary embodiment of Check 21 under conventional operation. First, a payor drafts a paper check payment from their demand deposit account (DDA) bank (step 22). Next, the paper check is physically delivered, such as mailed, hand delivered, etc., to a payee (step 24). The payee manually deposits the paper check into their bank account (step 26). The bank where the payee deposits the check is referred to as a bank of first deposit (BOFD). Once in the BOFD, the paper check is sorted and converted into a substitute checking according to the regulations under Check 21. The BOFD can pay the payee cash, credit the payee's account, or the like (step 30) once the check has been deposited into the payee's account. Also, the BOFD initiates the clearing process with the substitute check through a traditional clearinghouse or an Electronic Payments Clearinghouse (EPCH) or the like (step 32). The clearing process moves the substitute check to a clearing bank, i.e. the bank with the DDA account of the payor, and the clearing bank validates the substitute check data, verifies the account exists with sufficient funds, and finally pays the BOFD (step 34). Finally, the clearing bank can use the substitute check image with the payor's monthly statement in lieu of paper checks (step 36).
Of note, the Check 21 Act does not require any bank to use electronic check processing, receive electronic presentment, or create substitute checks based on check images. However, after the effective date of the Check 21 Act, any bank that requires an original check must accept a legally equivalent substitute check in satisfaction of that requirement. As a result, for the most part, banks would not be required to change their check processing equipment or practices because of the Check 21 Act, and there would be no need for a bank to sort original checks and substitute checks separately during the check collection process. Using the substitute check format, banks which choose to use image processing during their check collection and clearing process are allowed to do so while maintaining backwards compatibility with banks which do not have the ability to electronically process image files. For example, in the past, a depositary bank in California that receives a check drawn on a bank in New York would transport the original paper check back to New York for payment. Now under Check 21, a substitute check image file can be sent to the New York bank without specific prior contractual agreement or consent by the New York bank to the California bank. Now, if needed, the New York bank (or its agent) can receive the image file and print it in IRD or substitute format and continue to process the re-created paper check using their traditional check clearing process. In summary, Check 21 allows banks that wish to image checks and exchange image files to do so while still allowing some banks to receive compatible paper checks based on Check 21 image files.
Electronic payments and images and the like contain raw data which constitutes the item itself, however there is another form of data called “metadata”. Metadata is data about data. An item of metadata may describe an individual datum, or content item, or a collection of data including multiple content items. Metadata is used to facilitate the understanding, use, and management of data. The metadata required for effective data management varies with the type of data and context of use. The concept of “generating a bitmap image from metadata” is foreign to banks, but common in the computer graphics industry. Thus, those skilled in the art of payments are generally not familiar with concepts utilized by well known computer bitmap “rasterization” algorithms to produce images. However, as is known by those skilled in computer graphics, it is often easier and more convenient to generate bitmap images dynamically from metadata. Further, there is no nexus between bitmap generation and graphics with the payment system, checks, or legal contracts, the UCC and the like. Finally, to make an electronic check image payment system acceptable to banks, additional security is required to protect banks from accepting fraudulent images (e.g., created by hackers using a graphics program). Additionally, banks have made a large investment in paper check imaging equipment, thus there is no incentive to pay for the designing and building of new software systems to enable end user created paperless Check 21 items. Additionally, there is little to no existing Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) security infrastructure or systems currently at banks (other than Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) keys for website security) which could facilitate end user digital signing of Check 21 images.
Thus, conventional mechanisms in the banking and payment industry include imaging of paper checks. Check 21 only allows banks to truncate paper checks to create Check 21 items. Additionally, it is well known by those skilled in the art of payments that Remote (electronic) Deposit (RD) services are currently available to businesses. RD systems enable the business, as a payee, to scan the paper checks they receive and remotely deposit the items into their bank. However, these RD items are cleared through the ACH network as POP or ARC items, not as UCC items. Thus, no mechanism exists to allow UCC based electronic checks to flow through the entire check payment system without reduction to paper at some point and or conversion into another payment type. Existing ACH “electronic check” prior art does not solve these problems as these all disclose a paper check in one form or another in the process. Further, these ACH “electronic” checks do not comply with ANSI X9 image standards.